The Metaverse

As predicted in October, social media giant Facebook has changed its name to Meta. See The Metaverse is Coming (October 2021). Rebranding can be about a name change, or could just be focused on a logo specifically. Such efforts have been successful, but there have been some relatively memorable failures as well. Time will tell where this one falls on the spectrum, in terms of maintaining company loyalty and building the new perspective seemingly desired.

There seems to be some consensus that a metaverse is coming. It has yet to arrive and already has critics. The virtual experience is going to include headsets, avatars, enhanced graphics, and perceived benefits. There will be repetitions of the perennial cycle between software challenging hardware capabilities followed by new and expensive cards and capability, followed by more demanding software upgrades, and the cycle will be persistent. We have seen this with business software for decades. And, there will be demands for more bandwidth, faster Internet, and lamentation for the underserved (yes, here in Paradise that 5G thing is science fiction in a "Galaxy Far, Far Away").

Some perceive that the metaverse is thus an eventuality. One critic recently penned a criticism for Inc. of the Facebook marketing regarding "its vision," and concluded that he's not "pessimistic about the metaverse, . . . just pessimistic about the idea of Facebook building it." The contention is that recent advertising reveals "everything wrong with" Facebook. Despite that, it is not an indictment of what Meta does or fails to do. It is a critique of Facebook/Meta's vision of social interaction. 

This describes the Facebook "grand vision" is "that people will spend hours a day wearing headsets, living and working in virtual reality." To illustrate this, the advertisement features two neighbors who don't get on so well in person, but become friends in the ether (even to include complaining online about each other, a stab at irony and humor). The article concludes "The ad is meant to be humorous, of course. It's not, but that's not even the biggest problem."

The criticism is about the draw of spending hours daily wearing a headset immersed in another world. The author blames social media generally, but Facebook specifically, for creating a false impression that loose online exposure to people's images, comments, and otherwise somehow "is a substitute for actually engaging with real people." He contends that such interaction "doesn't mean you have a relationship," and may not mean you even "know the person."

The connections established through social media exhibit that virtue and vice are sometimes inextricably intertwined. Our greatest strength can be our greatest weakness. It is exceedingly simple to become connected to people through social media, to perceive what they publish, and their presence, and to not go through all that there is to build a relationship, or get to really know them. The very strength many find in the Internet is the ease of connecting, and that ease of "connecting" (and later dumping or ghosting) perhaps leads us into superficial and largely illusory "relationships" that pale in comparison to the real world.  That they distract us from the more present and real relationships is more lamentable. 

We need human interaction. We need community. And, for decades the busy and engaged have lamented that is is hard to meet people, to make friends, to maintain relationships. That challenge is met by social media, but with a superficial solution that builds superficial relationships. They are easy and frictionless, without consequence, disposable. But, they are likewise apt to each be worth exactly the what was invested in them - little or nothing. And, they may distract from the real and ethereal, the here and now. 

The Inc. article suggests disappointment that the metaverse vision addresses none of the criticisms that have been levelled at social media. One commentator says these include privacy, loneliness, ownership, and distraction. Those are likely worth consideration. Others contend that criticism of social media is merely the concern du jour, and like heavy metal and hip hop, concerns will fade. That may also be worthy. Is social media dangerous per se, or merely detrimental as a distraction, or just good fun?

Is there merit in asking questions about how we are "connecting" without really connecting? Is the superficial nature of social media and online relationships likely to become more meaningful in the metaverse, or as Inc. questions will it merely "be an amplified version of the kind of relationships people have been building online for years?" Is our community benefited, are we benefited by online interactions in which we might be unaware that our "friend" lives right next door?

Instead, some believe that there are challenges presented by the present situation. There are criticisms of social media. The experience is said to be manipulative, and driven by artificial intelligence and algorithms. Some claim that it is designed to appeal to our brain's chemical response system (dopamine and more), and is particularly dangerous to people predisposed (such as the young). There have been discussions of protecting children from it, but little in the way of regulation or even public health recommendations. 

Would such recommendations matter anyway? We are in the midst of one of the greatest failures of the modern age with the Opioid scandal in our midst. Public policy protects us from it. Public information on its detriments abounds. Despite this, a vast population remains engaged in consumption and use even as they see the destruction and detriment suffered by those around them. Others remain engaged in methamphetamine, alcohol, and a variety of other challenges. Would frank discussion of social media perils be any better heeded?

The Inc. author concludes that the Meta ad likely portrays exactly what Facebook sees, "an accurate picture of what Facebook is building." But, he questions whether it is the message Facebook should want to send. It leaves the author "pessimistic about the idea of Facebook building" the metaverse.  

But, it ignores that perhaps what is being built, the superficial and the shallow is exactly what people want. I know a great many who complain about social media, but very few who have walked away. Some remind me of friends who lamented cigarettes so bitterly, but always had a pack to share. People find themselves believers in what it delivers even as they criticize its weaknesses or failures. If they will not walk away from what is, why would anyone doubt the strength of an enhanced and google-cized expansion of the present?

What does it have to do with workers' compensation? A great deal actually. 

The vision for the metaverse is for it to consume your time, and fulfill your needs. This is intended to include leisure, entertainment, and gaming. However, it is also envisioned to include interaction, meetings, and collaboration. Those designing this "space" envision work being regularly conducted in the metaverse. The challenges of the environment may thus readily evolve into challenges of business, employment, and yes workers' compensation. It bears monitoring and ongoing evaluation. 

How work occurs is evolving. That will mean more remote meetings. Will hours a day in a headset lead to chronic injury (think of the ergonomic revolution in the 1990s), eye strain issues, accidental engagement (forgot to take of headset, neck jerked; did not see table, tripped and fell)? There may be future challenges in the area of work injury. Will the interweaving of virtuality and business affect work hours, fatigue, and injury? Will the mixture of work and more lead to issues regarding "course and scope" or "arising out of" and compensability?

Will businesses leap into this new paradigm? Will it bring strength, performance, savings, and profit? Will it bring complications, challenges, and injury? The future is coming, and it is potentially intriguing.